Destiny [Hoping for PC port]

[Dresden]

First off, I'd like to preface this thread by stating Bungie hasn't officially announced a PC version of Destiny. And that bugs me. A lot. I've been playing with some friends on their PS4 and I really enjoy it. To the point where I've even considered buying a PS4 STRICTLY for Destiny. But knowing my shit luck, I'd do that and then it would be announced for PC. Also, I'm really not fond of the idea of spending $600+ for one game.

The general consensus I've heard from friends who play/from what I've read online is the PC is quite literally the "perfect platform" for such a game. I'm an enormous fan of the the RPG/FPS hybrids, and my time devoted to the Borderlands series can attest to that. My question is, while Bungie has neither confirmed or denied the possibility of a PC port, they've even stated flat-out they've given much consideration to the notion, it drives me nuts that they've been so vague regarding a PC version. Does anyone anticipate this'll eventually debut on PC? Aside from rumors and speculation, which I habitually take with a grain of salt, yesterday it was discovered Bungie is actively searching for PC compatibility testers, through a job post.

What's everyone's opinions on the matter?

 

[Bludd]

I would totally play a PC version of Destiny (or Destiny 2 or whatever), but as you say, Bungie hasn't announced anything so I am not holding my breath even if that job posting you mention is related to Destiny.

 

[AlNom]

I hope they figured out how to do 60fps in their engine.

 

[ArcticCircle]

There never is any good reason why high profile games like Destiny or Red Dead Redemption skip PC. It's strange that couple of million extra units sales don't seem to matter at all. Even if they'd have to build everything from ground up (or use different engine), it would still be worth to create PC version. They have already done models, textures, environments, animations, sounds, music, plot, writing...

It's never been proven as far as I know that both Sony and Microsoft would buy game for their system and not allow for example PC or Nintendo version. But still... makes you wonder.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Sony used to prohibit exclusives to their platform from being offered on PC. Now they just heavily discourage it. I'm guessing the level of cash received for exclusivity is tied to that. And 1st/2nd party exclusives (like Bloodborne) are prohibited still, AFAIK.

Microsoft used to heavily discourage exclusives from being offered on PC but didn't prohibit it. Now they either encourage it or don't do anything to discourage it. And 1st party exclusives in the past have been a mixed bag, not a blanket prohibition, but a title by title determination. Going forward, it appears they'll be more active in making their 1st party exclusives available on PC as well, although some franchises may remain console only.

Multiplatform games were entirely up to the publisher (like RDR). In those cases, it was most likely a fear of rampant piracy. RDR was released after GTA IV, which was HEAVILY pirated. At the time it was the most pirated game in the history of gaming. Of course, some would say it was deserved as the port wasn't particularly good. Over time that fear seems to have lessened quite a bit as they finally released GTA V on PC. But only after there was no chance that a pirated PC version might reduce the sales of the console versions.

As for Destiny, that's a strange one. As up until that it was extremely rare for Activision to not offer a PC version of a game they published. So I can only assume that part of Bungie's contract with Activision contained a provision that they would not be required to make a PC version. IE - Bungie didn't want to have to worry about making a PC port or having to worry about a 2nd party making a bad PC port (like the recent Batman game) while developing the game.

TL: DR - Sony are more concerned with pure exclusivity, but are loosening up on that slightly for 3rd parties. Microsoft were more concerned with console exclusivity and not pure exclusivity for 3rd parties.

Regards,
SB

 

[orangpelupa]

or bungie simply want full control of their game. thus no PC version will ever be released.
you are not allowed to doing stuff that not blessed by bungie

 

[pjbliverpool]

There never is any good reason why high profile games like Destiny or Red Dead Redemption skip PC. It's strange that couple of million extra units sales don't seem to matter at all. Even if they'd have to build everything from ground up (or use different engine), it would still be worth to create PC version. They have already done models, textures, environments, animations, sounds, music, plot, writing...

It's never been proven as far as I know that both Sony and Microsoft would buy game for their system and not allow for example PC or Nintendo version. But still... makes you wonder.

I would guess that in some cases it's purely a lack of manpower. It's not that a PC version couldn't necessarily turn a profit, it's just that they only have enough manpower to focus on the more profitable console versions. Obviously a third party port is always an option but that's proven to be a minefield.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Sony used to prohibit exclusives to their platform from being offered on PC.

Perhaps because if it's on another platform it's not exclusive? I.e. you diminish the appeal of your platform if people don't have to buy it to play said exclusive game, thereby devaluing the cost of paying for exclusivity in the first place. Sony are competing for gamers $$$ in both the consoles and PC space.

There never is any good reason why high profile games like Destiny or Red Dead Redemption skip PC. It's strange that couple of million extra units sales don't seem to matter at all. Even if they'd have to build everything from ground up (or use different engine), it would still be worth to create PC version. They have already done models, textures, environments, animations, sounds, music, plot, writing...

There would have been good reasons. I've yet to encounter any company that tuned away from free money and money, i.e. bottom lines, is the factor that most affects decision making. It's not a given either of these games would have sold as well as you expect on PC. Westerns aren't exactly a hugely popular genre and the PC market is already saturated with first person shooters/MMOs. I think both would have been a gamble.

But the question that both publishers/developers would have asked themselves isn't will we make a profit?, it is can we more make profit using these resources on a new game than porting this game to PC? Everything generally boils to do what is the most profitable thing that can be done with x people in y timeframe.

 

[BRiT]

But then there is the constant maintenence of the port, they would be sinking constant money into the 5th port of the game with every patch and update.

X360
Ps3
XboxOne
Ps4
PC

 

[ArcticCircle]

it is can we more make profit using these resources on a new game than porting this game to PC? Everything generally boils to do what is the most profitable thing that can be done with x people in y timeframe.

I don't think it's right question at all in this case. To create a port is near zero creative work and there's plenty of work force for that. You can't clone another Houser brother to write PC exclusive game but you sure can hire or create team of basic code slaves and QA teasters to port game to PC. Thanks to steamspy we know that Rockstar (as well as Activision) high profile IPs sell millions. Yes, significantly less then consoles versions combined, but still way beyond what port would cost. It's not lack of capital or inability to get loans issue either so there's plenty of resources to go around inside every major publisher.

There are now almost 3 million units of GTA 5 on Steam alone (this ignores all retail and Rockstar Social Club versions of the game, like my personal copy). We know the price (60, never been on sale), we know how much Valve takes (33% ), thus Rockstar has made 120 million from Steam alone.

And piracy... I don't think that's issue in era of high profile games that have significant online component. And even if it is, like in the case of GTA 4, it still sold millions on PC platform. Destiny couldn't even be pirated, as it's online only game. Reverse engineering and private servers might happen, but keeping up with updates is never easy on those.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

When you have the benefit of hindsight, all decisions are easy GTA is the most profitable franchise in gaming but not all games sell like that. And that includes Read Dead Redemption, the predecessor for which did not set the world on fire. Nor Destiny, which was a new IP and was a total unknown.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Perhaps because if it's on another platform it's not exclusive? I.e. you diminish the appeal of your platform if people don't have to buy it to play said exclusive game, thereby devaluing the cost of paying for exclusivity in the first place. Sony are competing for gamers $$$ in both the consoles and PC space.

10-15 years ago that may have been the case, but there is far less movement from PC to consoles these days. Hence why Microsoft is no longer as concerned about it and hasn't been for a few years. Heck even when Xbox was growing and X360 was at the height of its popularity, they never mandated that 3rd parties could not release exclusives on the PC. And that certainly didn't stop the X360 from exploding in popularity compared to it's previous incarnation. PS3 with it's mandated exclusivity only just matched the X360. PS4 would be doing well regardless of it's pure exclusives, so again a non-factor. They'd be selling exactly as well with console exclusives. And arguably Sony would be making significantly more profit from their 1st and 2nd party exclusives if they were offered on PC as well. There's a crapton of PC players that would love to play Bloodborne, but are never getting a PS4.

Back then I knew a lot of people that got a console just to play Halo. These days? I know very few PC gamers that bought a console just to play Destiny. Almost all of them are waiting on a PC port, or just plan to never play it. I'm one of those. There was a time when I'd buy console games if it was the only platform available for them, but not anymore.

Regards,
SB

 

[AlNom]

Can't remember why, but I had the impression that RDR was a mess for development.

 

[ArcticCircle]

Can't remember why, but I had the impression that RDR was a mess for development.

Red Dead Redemption is wound that does not heal

Let's say it's total mess. All scripts break down and cannot be ported to PC. But still, they have same RAGE engine that they have used for GTA 4, Max Payne 3, GTA 5 for PC. They use Euphoria animation. They have all sound files, all the model and texture data. Game is written and voice acted. Scenarios and missions are designed. Game could have been massive bomba on PC and it still would have made profit. Alan Wake took whole 48 hours to make enough to pay all costs of making the PC port

 

[orangpelupa]

too bad if it comes to PC, probably it wont have crossplay with PS4. It may have crossplay with xbox.

because without crossplay, doing team activity (matchmaking and LFG) can be annoying (more chance to be paired with people from other side of the world.

Like titanfall that only have less than 100 person online in Asia -___-

but if they able to make crossplay across all platform... that will be superb. Although i dont think sony will be happy. They already exited PC business, bringing crossplay PC-PS4 no benefit for them

 

[Deleted member 11852]

10-15 years ago that may have been the case, but there is far less movement from PC to consoles these days.

What data supports this? A lot of people are buying PS4 and Sony tell us they're certainly not all PS3 owners, are you really suggesting huge numbers of 360 numbers have bought PS4s? If so, who is still buy Xbox Ones?

The core PC market has been calculated by Steam Spy to be around 1.3m buyers and such a small market would be imperceptible in PS4 sales if even a large segment of that market bought a console for much wanted exclusives. I agree that not many people may spring for a new platform for just one game but consoles built up an extensive line of exclusives over their lives and consoles are getting cheaper and cheaper making purchase a less significant investment.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Red Dead Redemption is wound that does not heal Let's say it's total mess.

I think AlNets was referring to the fact that the working conditions were supposedly incredibly bad for the RDR team, i.e. this wasn't the usual stressful crunch. You had devs speaking out, their spouses speaking out. That being said that would impact any porting effort. Who knows what state the documentation for the game is it, or the resources from which the game is built.

 

[pjbliverpool]

The core PC market has been calculated by Steam Spy to be around 1.3m buyers and such a small market would be imperceptible in PS4 sales

Yes but you fail to consider just how much those paltry 1.3 million gamers love to game.

For example many of them bought GTAV 3 times on Steam alone! And they must have really loved Skyrim since they each bought 7 copies of it! Perhaps one for each day of the week?

Of course the other possibility is that the 1.3 million figure is miles of reality. Let's look a little closer at what the article actually said:

"So, to be a member of the “1% group” of Steam gamers you have to own 107 games or more. That’s not much considering how Steam is selling games at discount prices and how easy it is to obtain games in bundles.

We’re talking about 1.3M PC gamers that could fall into definition of “core gamer that buys several games per year”

Interesting.... so in order to be considered a "core gamer" that is likely to buy a PC port of Destiny (i.e. one of these 1.3 million 'core gamers') there is a pre-requisite of owning 107 games on Steam alone. Wow, I guess that counts me out along with most of the PC gamers on B3D! (Davros excluded of course).

But hang on, he goes on to say this:

"Of course we could extend it to, I don’t know, “softcore gamers” — the 20% that own 88% games. To be included you’d have to own 4 (FOUR) games or more on Steam — not exactly a huge number, right?"

So if I own 4 games or more on Steam I'm actually part of a 26 million strong market. And that's just Steam. I wonder how many PS4 gamers out of the roughly 26 million strong market own at least 4 games? Because it would need to be 100% to have any hope matching the PC Steam market, let alone the entire PC market.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

For example many of them bought GTAV 3 times on Steam alone! And they must have really loved Skyrim since they each bought 7 copies of it! Perhaps one for each day of the week?

Or perhaps the appeal of those games goes beyond what Steam Spy define as the 1.3 "core gamers" ? I think that's a more likely explanation.

I don't see this any different to console attach rates. Games like Skyrim and GTA V will sell a truck load more copies than many other games but still to only a fraction relative to total size of the platform in question - and it's often a very small fraction. I've long believed, based on what console game sales numbers are available (and acknlowedging that digital sales on consoles is something of a black hole unlike Steam) that a small proportion of gamers make up for a disportionately large number of sales.

So if I on 4 games or more on Steam I'm actually part of a 26 million strong market. And that's just Steam. I wonder how many PS4 gamers out of the roughly 26 million strong market own at least 4 games? Because it would need to be 100% to have any hope matching the PC Steam market, let alone the entire PC market.

There's little info on console sale distribution. You see attach rates published on incomplete figures with fuzzy math based on demographics but it's spitballing really. But I doubt the dynamics of the market are hugely different between console and PC, it's just the outliers are different. I.e. relative to the consoel market the PC market is larger but sales of cross-platform games tend to be fewer.

You and I are probably not "average gamers" by any numeric definition. I have 20+ $60 games on PS4 and another 30+ smaller/indy titles, on PC my library is hundreds and hundreds in size although admittely my PC library began in 1997.

 

[pjbliverpool]

Or perhaps the appeal of those games goes beyond what Steam Spy define as the 1.3 "core gamers" ? I think that's a more likely explanation.

Then what is the point of defining a "core gamer" market that is "limited" to a maximum of 1.3 million gamers if all it takes to break into markets beyond that core is a game that appeals to more people? Wouldn't Destiny qualify as a game that might appeal more people than what Steam Spy define as the 1.3m "core gamers"? i.e. the people who own 107 or more games on Steam?

I don't see this any different to console attach rates. Games like Skyrim and GTA V will sell a truck load more copies than many other games but still to only a fraction relative to total size of the platform in question - and it's often a very small fraction. I've long believed, based on what console game sales numbers are available (and acknlowedging that digital sales on consoles is something of a black hole unlike Steam) that a small proportion of gamers make up for a disportionately large number of sales.

Completely agree.

There's little info on console sale distribution. You see attach rates published on incomplete figures with fuzzy math based on demographics but it's spitballing really. But I doubt the dynamics of the market are hugely different between console and PC, it's just the outliers are different. I.e. relative to the consoel market the PC market is larger but sales of cross-platform games tend to be fewer.

Yep agreed, but I don't think it's fair to define the market likely to buy a new AAA PC game (in this example; Destiny) as only those people who own 107 or more games on Steam. The same restrictions (even reduced by an order of magnitude) wouldn't apply to the console market.